Stand0nIt@aol.com wrote:
>1. In view of the fact that nearly zero of the nationally
competitive SP cars are
>streeted on any kind of a regular basis
That's not a question, it's an assertion. I'd say it's probably
true, but that it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
>is is a bad thing for a category called "Street Touring" to shy
away from from the >concept of Streetable SP and stay closer to
bolt on stock?
That, OTOH, is called a "rhetorical question," and it contains
two assumptions: first, that the rulesmakers have some obligation
to encourage folks to compete in their daily drivers, and,
second, that the U/B portion of Street Prepared somehow made
meeting this obligation more difficult. Both assumptions are
false.
> 2. As it is my understanding the original vision of STS was to
be a
> strictly bolt on mod class.
Let's say I concede that I believe your understanding is correct.
Precisely how does U/B - which prohibits cutting and/or welding
as part of any allowed modification - conflict with that? (Hint:
that's a rhetorical question, too. The answer is, "it doesn't.")
>Do you believe that junkyard engine
>swaps (as a means of being competitive rather than simple
economics)
In your parenthetic phrase, you're assuming that the two
motivations are somehow mutually exclusive. Furthermore, a
"junkyard engine swap" MUST be a bolt-on change in order to be
legal under U/B.
> belong in the ST concept?
What I (or you) believe now is entirely irrelevant. The fact
(remember how you said you were interested in facts?) is that,
originally, STS had the update/backdate rule directly from Street
Prepared. Nobody who's paid the slightest attention to Solo II -
certainly nobody who'd been around long enough to be entrusted
with writing the rules for a new Category - would have had the
slightest doubt as to what U/B allowed. Hell, the wording
_specifically_ referenced engine changes. How can you claim that
the "intent" was never to allow engine swaps, when the rule SAID
you could do it in no uncertain terms?
> 3. ST was designed to attracted new members (whether or not it
has is a
> different debate).
That's not a question, but an assertion. I'd say it's true, given
the preamble to the STS rules.
> Given that UD/BD generally helps older cars more
> than new due to availability,
That's not a question, but a totally unsupported assertion.
Obviously, U/B will be of no benefit until there are multiple
model years of a car model on the same line. Is it your belief
that most ST competitors are buying shiny new cars in the first
year of production of the model, modding them, and then competing
in them? I would agree that U/B would be of little potential
benefit to that particular demographic. As soon as there are
_two_ model years out there, however (or multiple trim/performanc
levels), U/B would be of potential benefit. Keep in mind that the
second word in "update/backdate" is "backdate." Sometimes it's to
a competitor's advantage to put an older part on a newer car.
My observation of the vehicle population of ST is quite different
from what you appear to be seeing. I'd say the average age of ST
vehicles approaches or even exceeds five years.
> is it good for
> the club as a whole to give anymore of an advantage to out of
date cars
> that are already dominating the class?
IOW, IF I accept your silly premise (that U/B favors cars that
fit some undisclosed definition of "older"), do I believe the
result is good? My answer: I don't accept the premise, and it
doesn't matter anyway. U/B _was_ allowed in STS, now it's not.
That's a fact.
> And Finally...
> Why is it that this is such a hot button for the three of you?
Pointing out facts is not evidence that something is a "hot
button" issue.
> Do you
> have plans to compete in ST?
At any given time, I might consider competing in _any_ Category,
although that's irrelevant to the discussion, as well as none of
your business.
I'm interested in the "core values" of Solo II as published in
Section 2.3 of the rulebook. Among the things that helps promote
those core values, I place rules stability at a very high
priority. Having given an allowance in a Category, I believe that
only in extraordinary circumstances should the allowance ever be
taken back. In my judgement, the only "extraordinary" thing that
was happening in this case was the extraordinary amount of
bitching done by a handful of individuals.
Jay
|